Spanair accident at Madrid
faa_cpl_h;
Absolutely true. However, the point being made was, "why wasn't a test flight carried out first?" Would you agree that a test flight is required for MEL items? Are we placing passengers "at risk" by departing thus?
My historical posts are absolutely clear on flight safety and organizational issues including profit-before-safety issues. However, the challenge from sandbank was as stated above and it is a misconception of how a mechanical is handled. The comments are not only not harsh, they are largely, though not wholly, instructive.
what people are trying to point out to you that the aviation industry is not driven by safety; it is run as a commercial operation where profits are put ahead of true safety.
My historical posts are absolutely clear on flight safety and organizational issues including profit-before-safety issues. However, the challenge from sandbank was as stated above and it is a misconception of how a mechanical is handled. The comments are not only not harsh, they are largely, though not wholly, instructive.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2, I accept your posts have been informative as opposed to harse but there have been several posts where people take exception to someone posting who clearly has a limited understanding of the industry.
If journos do post on here for info for their articles maybe clear informative feedback will encourage them to get their facts right instead of making one post and then giving up and leaving the bunfight behind.....
If journos do post on here for info for their articles maybe clear informative feedback will encourage them to get their facts right instead of making one post and then giving up and leaving the bunfight behind.....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SandBank, finally we see someone who knows what they are talking about.
An aircraft that has to abort a take-off due to an engine fault is a serious issue.
Maintenance then carried out to correct this would then require a test flight, not a revenue flight.
For a pilot or engineer to release/accept the aircraft under such circumstances without carrying out a test flight dependent upon what the circumstance was would be classed as negligence.
May i remind you all that accepting commercial pressure is classed as negligence. The engineer releasing the aircraft makes the call as to whether the aircraft will require a test flight or not, the company has no right to over rule this decision.
Think about that people.
An aircraft that has to abort a take-off due to an engine fault is a serious issue.
Maintenance then carried out to correct this would then require a test flight, not a revenue flight.
For a pilot or engineer to release/accept the aircraft under such circumstances without carrying out a test flight dependent upon what the circumstance was would be classed as negligence.
May i remind you all that accepting commercial pressure is classed as negligence. The engineer releasing the aircraft makes the call as to whether the aircraft will require a test flight or not, the company has no right to over rule this decision.
Think about that people.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish i had never said anything now! Does anyone know if the MD82 OAT system is and MEL item. I can't believe that the OAT isn't a no go item but i would be interested to know for sure.
I don't know the specifics of whether the OAT/TAT is a go/no go item. It doesn't really matter. The plane returned to gate, and the issue was looked at by the engineers.
WHAT ON EARTH DOES A TAT PROBLEM HAVE TO DO WITH TEST FLYING???
WHAT ON EARTH DOES A TAT PROBLEM HAVE TO DO WITH TEST FLYING???
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX where did you get your information from about the aborted T/O due to an engine problem? Just that the information on here previously was talking about a OAT sensor/gauge problem.
faa_cpl_h;
I am a strong advocate of teaching/learning especially when it is taken to heart. Initially, there are no stupid questions. However, if learning doesnt' take place and a point continues to be pressed by someone who isn't an airline pilot they either see something none of us see or have another agenda not associated with learning and contributing. Thanks for your kind response.
xxxchopperpilot;
The judgement as to the nature of the mechanical issue is, as you would know (just from your handle) is in the hands of those examining the issue and the relevant documentation. We dont' know what the problem was with the airplane so we can't judge the outcome. I've had plenty of engine faults where I've returned to the gate and either had parts replaced while passengers waited on board or the fault cleared in the ACARS/AIMS system. Sometimes a test run-up is done to test for fuel or oil leaks if those systems have been worked on. I've had FADEC faults, reverser faults and so on but none would require a test flight and I and the crew have always been 100% happy before we depart. More than one occasion the park brake is set and the aircraft stays at the gate until we're happy. When we tell the passengers that, in exactly those terms, nobody complains and when the air is clear about our intentions, things happen.
I am a strong advocate of teaching/learning especially when it is taken to heart. Initially, there are no stupid questions. However, if learning doesnt' take place and a point continues to be pressed by someone who isn't an airline pilot they either see something none of us see or have another agenda not associated with learning and contributing. Thanks for your kind response.
xxxchopperpilot;
The judgement as to the nature of the mechanical issue is, as you would know (just from your handle) is in the hands of those examining the issue and the relevant documentation. We dont' know what the problem was with the airplane so we can't judge the outcome. I've had plenty of engine faults where I've returned to the gate and either had parts replaced while passengers waited on board or the fault cleared in the ACARS/AIMS system. Sometimes a test run-up is done to test for fuel or oil leaks if those systems have been worked on. I've had FADEC faults, reverser faults and so on but none would require a test flight and I and the crew have always been 100% happy before we depart. More than one occasion the park brake is set and the aircraft stays at the gate until we're happy. When we tell the passengers that, in exactly those terms, nobody complains and when the air is clear about our intentions, things happen.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VL
Nothing to do with test flying at all which is just as well because just in case you are not aware this thread is not about test flying.
Perhaps somebody who has some knowledge can answer my question since it is directly related to the matter in hand, ie the tragic event at Madrid.
Nothing to do with test flying at all which is just as well because just in case you are not aware this thread is not about test flying.
Perhaps somebody who has some knowledge can answer my question since it is directly related to the matter in hand, ie the tragic event at Madrid.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: north
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculations;
Several eyewitness reports state the aircraft was airborne before crashing.
If this was the case, at that point, most pilots in most situations would
not attempt to land and do a G/A.
Now lets assume the pilots did everything by the book, which means
a normal loss of an engine can be ruled out since they are well trained for this.
So, this leaves us with the plane for some reason got "unflyable".
We had reports that there were engine problems before the flight,
also that one ore more thrust reversers were deployed on the wreck.
Could it be that one thrust reverser buckets self deployed at rotate
or later?
XPM
Several eyewitness reports state the aircraft was airborne before crashing.
If this was the case, at that point, most pilots in most situations would
not attempt to land and do a G/A.
Now lets assume the pilots did everything by the book, which means
a normal loss of an engine can be ruled out since they are well trained for this.
So, this leaves us with the plane for some reason got "unflyable".
We had reports that there were engine problems before the flight,
also that one ore more thrust reversers were deployed on the wreck.
Could it be that one thrust reverser buckets self deployed at rotate
or later?
XPM
whartonp;
The thread was indeed about test flying for a moment but that dealt with, I think it's back on track...
I suspect the OAT (TAT & SAT indications, ADIRS info for the Airbus, ADC for the MD80?) would be an MEL item depending upon the availability of a second probe, (usually the case). Not sure if both probes are u/s. Anyone?
The thread was indeed about test flying for a moment but that dealt with, I think it's back on track...
I suspect the OAT (TAT & SAT indications, ADIRS info for the Airbus, ADC for the MD80?) would be an MEL item depending upon the availability of a second probe, (usually the case). Not sure if both probes are u/s. Anyone?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2,
May i remind you that "Until we're happy" is a statement that you will NEVER find in any Aircraft Maintenance Manual. I think, recalling to memory you may find this statement in a "Complacency" Manual. If the manual says do a test flight, then you actually do a test flight. A test flight under no circumstances will involve commercial passengers. I hope i never board an aircraft that you are in command of, as i don't think that you are up to the job. If you truly are a professional pilot then have a GOOD think about what you are about to write.
May i remind you that "Until we're happy" is a statement that you will NEVER find in any Aircraft Maintenance Manual. I think, recalling to memory you may find this statement in a "Complacency" Manual. If the manual says do a test flight, then you actually do a test flight. A test flight under no circumstances will involve commercial passengers. I hope i never board an aircraft that you are in command of, as i don't think that you are up to the job. If you truly are a professional pilot then have a GOOD think about what you are about to write.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Catalunya
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a very steep gully at this point, difficult for a lot of vehicles to cope with.
Madrid in the summer = hot and dry, fire would have spread very quickly. In the TV news shots here helicopters could be seen dumping water to attempt to put the fire out.
Brush fires and the use of helicopters are common things all over Spain.
Madrid in the summer = hot and dry, fire would have spread very quickly. In the TV news shots here helicopters could be seen dumping water to attempt to put the fire out.
Brush fires and the use of helicopters are common things all over Spain.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: eu
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possible scenario:
Tech problem, aircraft returns to gate - delay, duty time, industrial situation distracting crew etc etc...
Fault in aircraft warning systems but departure allowed.
Taxy out for second attempt, rushed procedures, before takeoff check not performed, aircraft attempts take-off with slats and flaps retracted...
Unlikely? It's happened before - Northwest MD82 N312RC Detroit 16th August 1987.
Sorry don't know how to post a link to the NTSB report for the above.
Tech problem, aircraft returns to gate - delay, duty time, industrial situation distracting crew etc etc...
Fault in aircraft warning systems but departure allowed.
Taxy out for second attempt, rushed procedures, before takeoff check not performed, aircraft attempts take-off with slats and flaps retracted...
Unlikely? It's happened before - Northwest MD82 N312RC Detroit 16th August 1987.
Sorry don't know how to post a link to the NTSB report for the above.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: .
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX, this is our point totally and we are in agreement. Read manual (MEL etc) and if it says do X to repair. You do X. If it says don't have to repair as long as conditions Y are met, you make sure conditions Y are met, aircraft is signed of and then you go flying.
If anywhere it said test flight is required one would be carried out. If none required it will go straight back into service.
Assuming you are a heli pilot and perhaps you have to test fly after lots of snags but on modern airliners most problems either cause the aicraft to be grounded or continue to fly in accordance to the MEL. As long as MEL conditions are met we take it.
This is what the previous comment about being happy will be. Not just a case of I reckon it will be ok but a case of being happy that all the legal requirements are met!
Also if the aircraft is grounded and repairs carried out, once it has been signed off the aircraft is then flown on a commercial flight with passangers on. Why, because thats legal and safe. No test flight required (in most cases).
Ground runs are often carried out for many engine snags. Engine performance satisfactory and it is signed back into service. Very very few cases actually require a test flight by a test pilot. Why do you think most airlines only have a handful of guys signed off to test fly? Its quite an uncommon occurance. If a test flight is required though it will be done.
PJ2 is totally correct and sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would be happy to fly with the chap!!! When he's happy I would be happy!
If anywhere it said test flight is required one would be carried out. If none required it will go straight back into service.
Assuming you are a heli pilot and perhaps you have to test fly after lots of snags but on modern airliners most problems either cause the aicraft to be grounded or continue to fly in accordance to the MEL. As long as MEL conditions are met we take it.
This is what the previous comment about being happy will be. Not just a case of I reckon it will be ok but a case of being happy that all the legal requirements are met!
Also if the aircraft is grounded and repairs carried out, once it has been signed off the aircraft is then flown on a commercial flight with passangers on. Why, because thats legal and safe. No test flight required (in most cases).
Ground runs are often carried out for many engine snags. Engine performance satisfactory and it is signed back into service. Very very few cases actually require a test flight by a test pilot. Why do you think most airlines only have a handful of guys signed off to test fly? Its quite an uncommon occurance. If a test flight is required though it will be done.
PJ2 is totally correct and sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I would be happy to fly with the chap!!! When he's happy I would be happy!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: up your nose
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally off topic.
Totally off topic and I know it but....
All I saw were pictures and video from the "media" without a time line but.
The amount of ambulances scrambled to the incident was amazing, the emergency services really responded!
As to the helicopters dumping water/retardent on the grass fire... Did they practice that or was that some really good situational awareness by the authorities?
I know the discussion on here will be aircraft related, but from what I saw the emergency services at Madrid were text book!
All I saw were pictures and video from the "media" without a time line but.
The amount of ambulances scrambled to the incident was amazing, the emergency services really responded!
As to the helicopters dumping water/retardent on the grass fire... Did they practice that or was that some really good situational awareness by the authorities?
I know the discussion on here will be aircraft related, but from what I saw the emergency services at Madrid were text book!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: France
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WIth regard to the El Mundo Images (I'm not even going to comment on their insensitivity to the injured and bereaved!) a couple of points that seem obvious to me, but have not been commented on:-
1. In picture 1, There appears to be a section of main wing in the foreground with the tailplane in the background resting on the downslope of the gully (note, this assumes we are seeing the image from the rear i.e. point of arrival). Would I be right in thinking that this would suggest that the aircraft broke up before it reached the gully, rather than from the impact of the sudden descent (assuming, of course that some other factor didn't move the wing-section)?
2. In picture 2, aparet from the fuselage section being removed by crane (which would seem questionable in itself, as per previous posts) all of the debris seems to be in very small pieces - not what I recall having seen from other t/o crash images, where fuselage (and wing sections etc) remains largely intact, if broken and burned. Would this not support the probability of a high-speed, or very violent impact, rather than a "pancake" or "slide".. If so, this would seem to support the previous suggestion that the a/c got airborne and was not in the process of an RTO.
Speculation I know, but from what is evident rather than witness accounts.
A sad day for all.
1. In picture 1, There appears to be a section of main wing in the foreground with the tailplane in the background resting on the downslope of the gully (note, this assumes we are seeing the image from the rear i.e. point of arrival). Would I be right in thinking that this would suggest that the aircraft broke up before it reached the gully, rather than from the impact of the sudden descent (assuming, of course that some other factor didn't move the wing-section)?
2. In picture 2, aparet from the fuselage section being removed by crane (which would seem questionable in itself, as per previous posts) all of the debris seems to be in very small pieces - not what I recall having seen from other t/o crash images, where fuselage (and wing sections etc) remains largely intact, if broken and burned. Would this not support the probability of a high-speed, or very violent impact, rather than a "pancake" or "slide".. If so, this would seem to support the previous suggestion that the a/c got airborne and was not in the process of an RTO.
Speculation I know, but from what is evident rather than witness accounts.
A sad day for all.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 152
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect the OAT (TAT & SAT indications, ADIRS info for the Airbus, ADC for the MD80?) would be an MEL item depending upon the availability of a second probe, (usually the case). Not sure if both probes are u/s. Anyone?
I found no mention of OAT or TAT-indications, but RAT and SAT are mentioned:
RAT/Thrust Rating System (Series 30,40,50,80).
---------------
(M) (O) The RAT portion may be inoperative provided:
a) A SAT or Standby RAT indicating System or PMS SAT readout is available,
b) Other Systems affected by the RAT Probe (DFGS, CADC, Thrust Rating, FMS, OMEG, PMS) are considered,
c) Thrust Rating System portion is considered inoperative for the Series 30, 40, and 50 and
Procedures are established to verify engine power setting.
---------------
(O) The EPR Limit/Thrust Rating portion may be inoperative provided:
a) A RAT or SAT Indication System or PMS SAT readout is available,
b) EPR Limit Chevron Automatic Mode is considered inoperative for the Series 80,
c) EPR Limit Mode of the auto throttle is placarded inoperative, and is not used on the Series 80, and
Procedures are established to verify engine power settings
---------------
(M) (O) The RAT portion may be inoperative provided:
a) A SAT or Standby RAT indicating System or PMS SAT readout is available,
b) Other Systems affected by the RAT Probe (DFGS, CADC, Thrust Rating, FMS, OMEG, PMS) are considered,
c) Thrust Rating System portion is considered inoperative for the Series 30, 40, and 50 and
Procedures are established to verify engine power setting.
---------------
(O) The EPR Limit/Thrust Rating portion may be inoperative provided:
a) A RAT or SAT Indication System or PMS SAT readout is available,
b) EPR Limit Chevron Automatic Mode is considered inoperative for the Series 80,
c) EPR Limit Mode of the auto throttle is placarded inoperative, and is not used on the Series 80, and
Procedures are established to verify engine power settings
Static Air Temperature Indicator
---------------
(O) May be inoperative provided Ram Air Temperature (RAT) System is operative.
---------------
(O) May be inoperative provided Ram Air Temperature (RAT) System is operative.